Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

If the EU decide to act like children and require UK citizens to obtain an international driver's license to drive there, then the UK would retaliate by requiring EU citizens to obtain same to drive here - but only EU citizens - visitors from the USA and elsewhere still wouldn't need one.

You keep painting the EU as acting like children when in reality all that is being described is the current arrangements for those countries that are not part of the EU and don't have an agreement with the EU. Arrangements that we in the UK currently apply to non EU countries without an EU agreement.

You appear to think that the benefits arising from EU membership should be the default position going forward. For UK commitments you think the default should be their removal.

If you are looking for childlike behavior, wanting all latest toys without appreciating that they need to be paid for, you might want to look a little closer to home,

I agree. No big deal but if you add up all these extra niggles, the time taken/delays and extra costs it gives individuals post-brexit a real cost, that realistically is not going to be compensated. We will be worse off, (for 50 years in Rees-Mogg's estimate)

Immigration in a Reformed EU – no open borders, no free ride, no mass migration

v Leading the Europe change - new leaders in France and Italy want a tough stance on illegal immigration, by staying in the EU, Britain can lead this and make sure it happens

v Use existing powers to restrict movement - Open borders have always been a choice – we can take a tough approach to immigrants like they do in Belgium:
v All EU immigrants will have to register
v No benefits for the first four years
v If they can’t find a job in 6 months, they have to go home
v We only get the immigrants who work hard, like nurses for the NHS -

We have always had control of our borders, but now we will have the money to keep out people we don’t want – the Remain Dividend and sacking BrexitBureaucrats means more Border Staff -

We can insure the EU has a tough policy on asylum seekers and only lets in people in genuine need, so no mass migration

The Belgian example skates over the changes necessary in the UK to match their rules, like registration of all UK residents and restrictions on benefits for young people, and ECJ issues on those without a job.

Sounds quite similar to what Cameron was asking for when he tried to negotiate 'reforms' so that he could then back "remaining in a reformed EU". The EU offered him practically nothing, but maybe now that Brexit is a reality they'll be prepared to be slightly more reasonable.

You appear to think that the benefits arising from EU membership should be the default position going forward.

If the thing under discussion benefits both sides, then it's stupid to argue that the benefit "arises from EU membership". Only the childish EU would argue, "Yes, such-and-such an agreement would benefit us as well as you - but we're not going to do it anyway because we want to punish you for daring to leave".

After Brexit, Europeans will still be permitted to drive in Britain but they'll be required to try to drive on their own side of the road. It's the only way they'll learn how foolish and wrong they are. It's the Will of the People.

I recall surveys reporting that a large percentage of Leave voters thought EU citizens should not be able to work in the UK but UK citizens should be allowed to work anywhere.

It was more the case that a majority thought that Brits should still have free movement in the EU, and a majority thougth that EU citizens should not have free movement to the UK. Obviously two majorities on the same survey meant that there was overlap who thought both at the same time.

If the thing under discussion benefits both sides, then it's stupid to argue that the benefit "arises from EU membership". Only the childish EU would argue, "Yes, such-and-such an agreement would benefit us as well as you - but we're not going to do it anyway because we want to punish you for daring to leave".

You sound like the ex-boyfriend who thinks he still entitled to shag his ex-girlfriend "for old times' sake."

If the thing under discussion benefits both sides, then it's stupid to argue that the benefit "arises from EU membership". Only the childish EU would argue, "Yes, such-and-such an agreement would benefit us as well as you - but we're not going to do it anyway because we want to punish you for daring to leave".

The benefit arises from the formal agreement allowing it, not just from an argument it benefits both sides. Benefit is not straight forward. The UK Post office will benefit from UK driving licence holders seeking an additional piece of paper to drive in the EU.

If one side decides to unilaterally withdraw from an agreement then then it is not punishment to point out that the agreement's benefits no longer apply and a new agreement will be needed to reinstate them. You continually struggle to understand this.

If you give up your golf club membership you can still play the course if the club agrees however the club is likely to make you pay a premium fee for the round and limit the times you can play to one when the members are not using the course. This is about the club being set up to serve its members and give them preferential deals. It is not about not punishing those who resign their membership. Do Manchester united punish their fans who are not official supporter's club members by giving members priority over tickets? If a member of the supporters club resigns is he punished by not being able to get a ticket?

Again with the golf club analogy. The EU is not a golf club, though it is mostly run by old rich white men.

If you leave a golf club, you're not expected to continue paying the pensions of the bar staff and other employees.

You do need to carry on paying monthly subs for as long as the contract said even if you no longer want to be a member.. What the club puts that money towards is entirely up to them.
We voted on and agreed to projects in the EU we promised to pay for.

I'd love to see Nigel Farage arguing against the EU paying his MEP's pension. I won't hold my breath.

Of course the EU should pay agreed pensions where they are contractually obliged so to do.

But once the UK is no longer part of the EU, it's ridiculous to assert that the UK should contribute to the EU's budget. Pensions paid by the EU should come from the EU's budget - not from contributions by ex member countries.

Once the UK is no longer part of the EU, Farage will no longer be an MEP. As with any other ex-MEP, his pension should be derived from the time he spent serving - and the UK will have paid its share* of his pension pot throughout that time.

*Much more than its share actually, given that the UK has been one of the largest contributors of EU funds throughout its time of membership.

You do need to carry on paying monthly subs for as long as the contract said even if you no longer want to be a member.. What the club puts that money towards is entirely up to them.
We voted on and agreed to projects in the EU we promised to pay for.

Most golf clubs have a yearly subscription. If you don't renew your membership at the end of a year, you don't pay them a penny afterwards - and there is no need to give any notice period that you intend to leave: you simply don't pay your subs for the next year and you're done.

In contrast, the UK has already given the EU two years notice that it's leaving - and has continued to pay its subscription throughout that time.

Once again, the golf club analogy is shown to be ludicrous. I wonder why you persist in trotting it out.

Most golf clubs have a yearly subscription. If you don't renew your membership at the end of a year, you don't pay them a penny afterwards - and there is no need to give any notice period that you intend to leave: you simply don't pay your subs for the next year and you're done.

In contrast, the UK has already given the EU two years notice that it's leaving - and has continued to pay its subscription throughout that time.

Hasn't the UK been enjoying the benefits of membership in the EU for those two years? They haven't actually left yet, after all.

Quote:

Once again, the golf club analogy is shown to be ludicrous. I wonder why you persist in trotting it out.

It continues to be one of the more apt and pertinent analogies that we see relating to the Brexit mess. Why give it up?

Just because it shows so clearly how ludicrous your arguments have been? That's not a good enough reason.

__________________"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

Most golf clubs have a yearly subscription. If you don't renew your membership at the end of a year, you don't pay them a penny afterwards - and there is no need to give any notice period that you intend to leave: you simply don't pay your subs for the next year and you're done.

In contrast, the UK has already given the EU two years notice that it's leaving - and has continued to pay its subscription throughout that time.

The EU has funding cycles the current one ends in 2020. We are leaving in the middle of that. If we were leaving at the end it would be different. The amount agreed to date was also on the understanding that despite leaving we would continue to get the membership benefits throughout the 2 year transition period.

Quote:

Once again, the golf club analogy is shown to be ludicrous. I wonder why you persist in trotting it out.

No it holds good. It is trotted out as it is apt and shows up the stupidity of the leave arguments in an easily understandable way.

Of course the EU should pay agreed pensions where they are contractually obliged so to do.

But once the UK is no longer part of the EU, it's ridiculous to assert that the UK should contribute to the EU's budget.

Wow, such blatant hypocrisy.

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

And you are also not expected to rock up and play a round whenever you like either.

Not unless the club allows non-members to play. Many (most?) golf clubs do allow this, providing, of course, that you pay the fee for playing that round and abide by the club's rules while you play. No golf club selling this service would expect you to also abide by all their rules when playing at other golf courses. Once again we see how totally inappropriate the golf club analogy is for the EU.

Not unless the club allows non-members to play. Many (most?) golf clubs do allow this, providing, of course, that you pay the fee for playing that round and abide by the club's rules while you play.

And if the UK wants to pay per game, with of course lower priority than actual members and their guests, then they may be permitted to do so.
After they've settled their outstanding dies first, of course.

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

And if the UK wants to pay per game, with of course lower priority than actual members and their guests, then they may be permitted to do so.
After they've settled their outstanding dies first, of course.

I know they are talking about stockpiling food and medicine, but that's a bit harsh...

Not unless the club allows non-members to play. Many (most?) golf clubs do allow this, providing, of course, that you pay the fee for playing that round and abide by the club's rules while you play. No golf club selling this service would expect you to also abide by all their rules when playing at other golf courses. Once again we see how totally inappropriate the golf club analogy is for the EU.

Actually, the analogy should be reverse.
A golf club (the EU) has a set of rules. you want to play there, you follow those.
Now if a different golf club you also play at has a totally different set of relaxed rules, you cannot expect that you can then play by those rules everywhere else.
So if, for instance, you want to export things to the EU, they will have to comply with EU standards, even if you buy them in the US that lacks said standards.

Of course, if you are part of a club you can try to change the rules, provided you get the other members to agree. If you just want to play without a fee on a case by case basis, you have no influence at all. And if you signed a two year contract, even if you leave you usually still have to pay for what you committed to.

And yes, that means that once the UK leaves the EU it will need to re-negotiate a lot of things. And while of course the UK will try to negotiate in its favour, the EU will do the same. And since it represents far more people, a stronger market and is less reliant on the UK than the other way around those negotiations will more often then not be in their favour.

The driving licenses are a good example. UK citizens not being able to drive in the EU is an annoyance, but not that much export comes from the EU that it will cripple parts of the economy. But the other way round it transpires that a LOT of food is transported to the UK and thus EU citizens not being able to drive there will most likely cause food problems.
Now you and other brexiteers may find it childish, but really, why would you expect the EU to keep giving Britain all sorts of perks for nothing in return?

That doesn't seem right though as when i got one Im pretty sure it was only valid for a year.... either because it expired or perhaps because the country i was visiting only allowed me to use it for 12 months?

If the thing under discussion benefits both sides, then it's stupid to argue that the benefit "arises from EU membership". Only the childish EU would argue, "Yes, such-and-such an agreement would benefit us as well as you - but we're not going to do it anyway because we want to punish you for daring to leave".

Jesus. It arises from the EU because it does. Simple statement of fact. When you leave the EU you lose the benefits of being a member. You can renegotiate those benefits if you want but you need to actually make an agreement. which you have repeatedly said we shouldnt try to do.

Just a gut feeling... but the UK drivers that are likely to drive down into the continent are most likely not the ones that voted for Brexit and thus should be alright.

Oh you would be surprised. Your typical brexiteer probably enjoys his two weeks in the Algarve with a hire car. Luckily they are probably too thick and ignorant to realise their license wont be valid anymore. Airport car hire desks are going to be hotbeds of gammon outbursts for years to come. Look forward to seeing the first of them jailed on the front of the Fail.

Just a gut feeling... but the UK drivers that are likely to drive down into the continent are most likely not the ones that voted for Brexit and thus should be alright.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Oh you would be surprised. Your typical brexiteer probably enjoys his two weeks in the Algarve with a hire car. Luckily they are probably too thick and ignorant to realise their license wont be valid anymore. Airport car hire desks are going to be hotbeds of gammon outbursts for years to come. Look forward to seeing the first of them jailed on the front of the Fail.

Yep. And shopping. A couple of morons in my office regularly shoot across on a wine/beer/cigarette run. They bring enough stuff back for friends to cover the costs.

Jesus. It arises from the EU because it does. Simple statement of fact. When you leave the EU you lose the benefits of being a member. You can renegotiate those benefits if you want but you need to actually make an agreement. which you have repeatedly said we shouldnt try to do.

I've said it was pointless trying to negotiate with the EU because, as yet, they are not negotiating in good faith: they are still trying to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of leaving, in the hope that we will then decide to remain. The EU needs the cold hard reality shock of us actually no longer being an EU member, and only then will they begin to negotiate agreements that can benefit both sides. Unfortunately, the EU's stance does mean a period of disruption for both sides - and in my opinion it's better not to procrastinate with the commencement of that period - delay will only prolong the disruption.

I've said it was pointless trying to negotiate with the EU because, as yet, they are not negotiating in good faith: they are still trying to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of leaving, in the hope that we will then decide to remain. The EU needs the cold hard reality shock of us actually no longer being an EU member, and only then will they begin to negotiate agreements that can benefit both sides. Unfortunately, the EU's stance does mean a period of disruption for both sides - and in my opinion it's better not to procrastinate with the commencement of that period - delay will only prolong the disruption.

I've said it was pointless trying to negotiate with the EU because, as yet, they are not negotiating in good faith: they are still trying to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of leaving, in the hope that we will then decide to remain. The EU needs the cold hard reality shock of us actually no longer being an EU member, and only then will they begin to negotiate agreements that can benefit both sides. Unfortunately, the EU's stance does mean a period of disruption for both sides - and in my opinion it's better not to procrastinate with the commencement of that period - delay will only prolong the disruption.

My screen needed a good coffee shower this morning. Many thanks for the assist.

Maybe corporations should try the same tactic: tell their ex-employees that what they need is the cold, hard shock of learning that since they've gone on to work for other companies, MegaCorp will no longer pay their portion of their pension when it falls due. That'll teach 'em. Though I'm not sure what.

I've said it was pointless trying to negotiate with the EU because, as yet, they are not negotiating in good faith: they are still trying to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of leaving, in the hope that we will then decide to remain. The EU needs the cold hard reality shock of us actually no longer being an EU member, and only then will they begin to negotiate agreements that can benefit both sides. Unfortunately, the EU's stance does mean a period of disruption for both sides - and in my opinion it's better not to procrastinate with the commencement of that period - delay will only prolong the disruption.

Have you considered the possibility that the EU is negotiating in good faith? That what the UK is asking for is is just not possible without undermining the very foundation of the EU?

Have you considered the possibility that the EU is negotiating in good faith? That what the UK is asking for is is just not possible without undermining the very foundation of the EU?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

Of course it's possible for the EU and the UK to, for example, mutually recognise and accept driving licenses. Project fear and the EU would have you believe otherwise, because they are desperate and will say anything, however absurd, in their efforts to get the UK to remain.

Maybe corporations should try the same tactic: tell their ex-employees that what they need is the cold, hard shock of learning that since they've gone on to work for other companies, MegaCorp will no longer pay their portion of their pension when it falls due. That'll teach 'em. Though I'm not sure what.

Do you think companies continue to pay into the pension pots of ex employees? If there are such companies then they are both rare and foolishly generous.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.